Santana v. United States
16-2435
| Fed. Cir. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Celeste Santana, a Navy Lieutenant Commander, was twice passed over for promotion (2009, 2010) and then denied continuation by a continuation board, leading to an honorable discharge in 2011.
- After a deployment to Afghanistan, Santana was detached and received adverse fitness reports (Nov. 2009, Jan. 2010, Feb. 2010) that she says were retaliatory for whistleblowing about environmental hazards.
- Santana filed a DoD IG whistleblower complaint (closed for insufficient evidence) and petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), which she later withdrew; she repeatedly sought but declined to exhaust the special-board procedures under 10 U.S.C. § 1558 before suing.
- In 2014 Santana sued in the Court of Federal Claims under the Military Pay Act seeking reinstatement, back pay, correction of records, and a special board, alleging First Amendment and MWPA violations tied to the adverse fitness reports and detachment.
- The Claims Court dismissed most of her complaint for lack of jurisdiction (or failure to exhaust) and granted judgment for the government on a narrow claim that a January 2010 fitness report amounted to a detachment for cause.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of the promotion/continuation claims for failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies and vacated/remanded to dismiss the detachment-for-cause claim as subsumed in the unexhausted claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claims Court may review challenge to promotion/continuation boards without special-board exhaustion under 10 U.S.C. § 1558 | Santana: Brought claim under MPA for pay and record correction; exhaustion unnecessary or futile | Government: § 1558 requires administrative special-board consideration before judicial review of selection/continuation decisions | Court: Dismissed these claims — Santana failed to exhaust mandatory § 1558 remedies; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether § 1558 exhaustion is jurisdictional or claim-processing | Santana: § 1558 should not bar MPA suit (relies on Martinez) | Government: § 1558 is a precondition to judicial review of board actions | Court: Did not decide jurisdictional label; held exhaustion nonetheless an essential element not met, so dismissal stands |
| Whether futility excuses failure to pursue BCNR/special-board process | Santana: Seeking review would have been futile given BCNR skepticism | Government: Available remedies were not "clearly useless" and could provide relief | Court: Futility not shown — BCNR/special-board route could have provided relief; exhaustion required |
| Whether Claims Court erred in rejecting Santana's detachment-for-cause claim on the merits | Santana: Detachment from Afghanistan (per Nov. 2009 fitness report) was a DFC that violated procedural rules | Government: Fitness reports and timing show no separate detachment-for-cause remedy distinct from separation/continuation claims | Court: That claim is subsumed within the non-promotion/separation challenge and barred by failure to exhaust; Claims Court should have dismissed it rather than adjudicate merits — vacated and remanded with instruction to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Ainslie v. United States, 355 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for Claims Court legal rulings)
- Navajo Nation v. United States, 631 F.3d 1268 (Fed. Cir.) (de novo review of Claims Court jurisdiction and remand instruction authority)
- Martinez v. United States, 333 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (distinguishing accrual rules where administrative remedies are permissive vs. mandatory)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (U.S.) (caution against treating claim-processing rules as jurisdictional)